Received: from wnt.dc.lsoft.com (wnt.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.7]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id CAA01899 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 1996 02:36:12 -0500 Message-Id: <199602190736.CAA01899@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by wnt.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.0a) with SMTP id BF5E7940 ; Mon, 19 Feb 1996 1:58:22 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 07:00:18 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: PLI: gismu for To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 383 X-From-Space-Date: Tue Feb 20 15:07:03 1996 X-From-Space-Address: - Goran > Yes, but we do not differentiate between kamkantu and kamselkantu in > gliban. Do we distinguish them in Lojban? After all, {ka kantu kei} means the same as {ka se kantu kei}; or is there some jvajvo convention that makes {kamkantu} = {ka kea kantu kei} and {kamselkantu} = {ka kea se kantu kei}? I suppose such a convention is a good idea, if you like jvajvo. coo; mie and